Talk:List of unusual deaths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This has been mentioned by a media organization:
This has been mentioned by a media organization:

Untitled[edit]

  • There is a holding tank for content, removed from the article due to poor sourcing, which may have been included in the article for a considerable time: Talk:List of unusual deaths/Sourcing issues. Following talk page discussion, and in line with WP:STALEDRAFT, it has been agreed that any content in this holding area not sourced within 6 months from addition should be removed.

RfC regarding removal of Isadora Duncan[edit]

Topic of this RfC: complete removal of "death of Isadora Duncan (1927)".
Lead section of this article states:


This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Note: some of the deaths are mythological or are considered to be unsubstantiated by contemporary researchers. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word "unusual" as "not habitually or commonly occurring or done" and "remarkable or interesting because different from or better than others."


A few days ago, I made this edit. Even though not "noted as being unusual by multiple source", there are way too many similar deaths in Indian subcontinent; making Duncan's death usual. Hence, i think it will be appropriate to remove Duncan's death completely from the article. One can see the citations provided there in the diff, and a few examples are provided below (all WP:RS). 2-3 sources may cause disturbance by graphics :

Scientific studies
News articles regarding deaths

(Some of the news articles might be repeated somewhere)

  • The deaths I am providing sources to, are only from India. And as per this source it is very common in India.[1]. These deaths include but not limited to:
  • the drape/scarf getting stuck in wheel of vehichle or some other sort of machinery, and working as a noose.
  • drape getting stuck in fast rotating wheel, thus giving violent jerk to neck, and breaking it. Death caused by broken neck, not by strangulation.
  • drape getting stuck in wheel, victim falling down, death by blunt force trauma tomthe head from the fall. [1] Kindly look second news deah of Pratibha Rajendra Bhosale.
  • being dragged by vehicle, death by strangulation on mid-day.
  • drape getting stuck in rotating wheel, pulling the victim down. Death by victim's vehichle, or some other vehichle running over victim.



Experts at the institute said that in the past 5-6 years, they have witnessed about 30-40 cases where women were accidentally strangled by drapes getting caught in motorcycles, scooters, mixers, table fans, rickshaws and factory equipment. Not just women, even men wearing mufflers and shawls have been strangled in freak accidents, AIIMS forensic experts said.[2]


In the light of these recent events of last 100 years, I think Duncan's death should be removed from this article now. If you think there is lack of sources, you will find some more sources in the section above. If you doubt me, or the sources I provided; then kindly search on internet for them.

On the reasoning/sources provided above, kindly provide your comments if death of Isadora Duncan should remain (KEEP), or should it be removed (DELETE)?

Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

References


@Captainllama, TJRC, and Martinevans123: informing you guys about RfC. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would agree with the lead, that for an "unusual" death to be included which has happened multiple times, then the method still must be so unusual as to be essentially unique - to the point where if the bizarre event occurred multiple times, such happenstance truly boggles the mind. If the incident in question had involved Miss Duncan being first strangled, and then stomped on by a unicorn and dragged behind a caravan of sentient vampire watermelons, then that might be unusual in the sense the lead describes.And in this instance, I would say being killed by an article of clothing is hardly unusual. Items of all sorts are caught in elevators, horse carriages, car doors, bicycles, poles, escalators, you name it, all over the world all the time. (yeesh, I'm going to make myself paranoid). But to hammer home my point a bit further, only if a death is so strange it might be included in a A Thousand Ways to Die episode, then should it be included as a main list item. Perhaps if there are strong feelings that more common but still bizarre deaths should have a section, for example spontaneous combustion, a separate section or page could be created for descriptions of general strange ways to die, with multiple examples for each method. Yvarta (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ok I will take up the baton as I was the original objector to Isadora’s removal albeit on somewhat different grounds which came about due to a lack of best editing practice. When the confusion was cleared I had a degree of sympathy for usernamekiran’s case but still felt it to be mistaken without being quite sure why. I posited that maybe time and place were contributing factors to "unusualness".

Eventually 5 editors replied: @Joegoodfriend, TJRC, Canada Jack, Martinevans123, and Andy Dingley: (two of whom usernamekiran pinged) with unanimous consensus to keep, for essentially two reasons:

  1. 1. all that is required for inclusion (as has been repeatedly established and stated) is that multiple sources describe the death as “unusual” or some synonym thereof.
  2. 2. context - time and place - do indeed impact upon unusualness.

Point #1 was addressed promptly and succinctly by TRJC giving five (count ‘em, 5) good quality reliable tertiary sources. That should have sealed it right there, but usernamekiran said “maybe they didnt do enough research. This accident is extremely common in india/indian subcontinent” which runs straight into point #2.

It matters not that something is commonplace given certain specifics. In the 1950s peanut allergies were almost unheard of, unusual, in fact. Nowadays all too common. A 5-day rainstorm is perfectly ordinary in Malaysia, in the Sahara less so. One might say that it is “unusual”.

Canada Jack and Martinevans123 both made that same point. Martinevans123 referred usernamekiran to the last successful RfC which decided precisely that criterion for inclusion, and invited usernamekiran, if they wished, to to open another RfC to decide if and how this criterion should change. Note please, usernamekiran was being referred to an RfC about a bigger matter than just Isadora Duncan, it was the RfC which settled policy under which her eligiblity and that of others had been settled. Usernamekiran was invited to open an RfC to question that policy, not an RfC about Isadora. However usernamekiran is of course free to open an RfC about Isadora if they wish, and indeed have.

Usernamekiran quoted “the wikipedia article itself: This is a list of unusual deaths. This list includes only unique or extremely …” etc etc, as if it lent weight to their argument (I don’t see that it militates either for or against the issue at hand). It is a descriptive title to tell the reader what to expect from the article, not an editor’s inclusion criteria policy.

For such a policy you must look to the talk pages where it has been, and continues to be, thoroughly masticated. If you look to the top of this page (as I did) you will see the Archive Index. Look back at well-argued questions of what’s meant by “unusual”, discussion of sources, hammering out of criteria for inclusion, a mesmerising sea of Wikipedia creation at its best. You will find, as did I, that the five sources from TJRC alone make Isadora’s death eminently eligible. Read on to discover why that is, why context is deemed relevant. The concerns raised by usernamekiran have been answered maybe a dozen times.

Usernamekiran finished last time saying “ nevermind. Maybe i am confused about the criteria. I will take a leave from editing the article”. Well that’s great. Humble acceptance of the unanimous opinion of 6 editors that more study of the background is required. Or so I thought.

So what’s this now? An RfC on Isadora Duncan’s inclusion? Ignoring the RfC referenced previously? Simply repeating the points that were dealt with last time? And ignoring how they were discussed and answered? Why? Are you trying to win? Please bear in mind that that Wikipedia is collaborative not competitive when I say “up your game”. Your enthusiasm is needed but this is wasting it.

Of course *Keep, it was settled long ago if you care to look, and this RfC was answered previously in talk and raises nothing new Captainllama (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I might remind you that tallying votes is not relevant to an RFC, except to perhaps the closing editor, and distracts from the central arguments at hand. I would like to note that I disagree with the premise that all that is needed for inclusion is for reliable sources to describe an event as "unusual." Lots of people use that term, with many connotations, and so in this case it is essentially useless. An opiate overdose might be unusual in a Buddhist monastery, but it is commonplace in my hometown. This is why I agree with the editor who raised the RFC, that "unique" should be the defining characteristic of what sets these deaths apart. An overdose in a Buddhist monastery is unusual, yes, but hardly unique. This is why I feel "time and place" do not matter in this context, instead timeless exceptional uniqueness. Otherwise any death described as unusual or odd could make it on that list. 'Described as unusual' is far too broad as an inclusion criteria and too dependent on subjective viewpoint, unless we made a list of "deaths that seem unusual to Indian monks," with a separate list for "deaths that seem unusual for suburban Americans." Yvarta (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Captainllama: I am simply trying to correct the factually incorrect things. Victory or defeat matters to me nothing. Instead of what happened in the past, why dont we handle the current situations?
  • The points: I provided you many deaths similar and some exactly similar to Duncan, with many reliable sources. And yet you are stuck on "Duncan's death is unusual".
  • Your criteria itself is flawed. "A death is unusual if multiple reliable sources mention it as unusual". Seriously? So Duncan dies, an RS calls it unique. Two months later, in the period of one month 10 persons die exactly the same way but nobody calls them unique cuz of Duncan. But you are forgetting the fact Duncan isnt unique anymore, she is one of the 11 victims of the same thing. Yet you keep on saying Duncan's death is unique. The death is not unique, ergo it should deleted from the list. Use some logic, and you will realise Duncan should be removed. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yvarta:You might remind me, but it is not relevant. No-one has tallied votes in an RfC. I merely stated that in the previous discussion (in talk, not in RfC) initiated by usernamekiran’s edit six editors reasoned against his edit and none supported it.
I also note you disagree with inclusion depending upon reliable sources describing an event as "unusual." That too is not relevant here. This is an RfC on the inclusion of Isadora Duncan’s death, not an RfC on the criteria for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion has been settled, for now, by previous RfCs, and Duncan’s death clearly obviously amply and unambiguously meets the criteria. If you wish to challenge the criteria, then by all means initiate a fresh RfC with that agenda. If you do so and are successful in changing the criteria, then that is the time to come here and argue that Duncan should be removed for not meeting the criteria. Until then kindly refrain from muddying the water.
For others of a similar mindset I will simplify. The criteria for inclusion is not the issue here. The issue is whether Isadora Duncan’s death meets the criteria. The criteria for inclusion is a separate, larger issue, and if you wish to take it up please save time by looking at the archives to see what the currently settled criteria actually are. Duncan’s death clearly meets the currently settled criteria. Don’t come here arguing she should be removed because you don’t like the criteria, start an RfC to change the criteria. But research the history first so you at least know what you’re talking about.
  • @Usernamekiran:For crying out loud it is not MY criteria.!! If you don’t like the criteria, here is NOT the place to bring it up. This is an RfC on Duncan’s inclusion, NOT an RfC on what the criteria should be. If you don’t like the criteria then start a(nother - yet another) RfC on THAT. But first at least do the other editors who have honourably argued that point long and hard the courtesy of reading and understanding how we came to our current position. Not to do so is simply rude.Captainllama (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess Ms Duncan will always generate controversy. Let's say this: here death was remarkable. We know it's remarkable because many people have remarked on and probably still do. In fact, its one of the more famous deaths. At this point, Duncan is more famous for how she died than how she lived.
Everybody, eventually, learns about how Isadora Duncan died, usually when they're 14 or something. Very few people react with "So? Happens all the time in India". Maybe the do if they're in India. But most people aren't in India (although a lot are). They're usually like "Gee, how odd" or something. It actually is considered an odd an unusual way for her to have died among her people (that is, 20th century Europeans / Westerners).
Maybe think of it like this: if, down the line, the Supreme Court of the United States decides that Donald Trump must face trial by ordeal and this proves fatal, that (IMO) would be an unusual death, notwithstanding that hundreds of people have died that way. It would be unusual in his context since he doesn't live in 13th century Europe. Same deal for Duncan: unusal in her context of being a 20th century European person. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Captainllama: the criteria is not a "golden rule". Let's put the criteria aside. As I stated, it has been proved that there are more than 100 similar deaths, then why can't we user just a little logic/sense of our own and remove Duncan?
  • @Herostratus: Death of John F. Kennedy:
    Always generates controversy?: Yes
    Remarkable?: Yes
    Have many people remarked on, and still do?: Yes, and yes.
    Famous death?: Yes
    More famous for how he died than how he lived?: (comparatively) Yes
    I don't see Jack's death in the list. Face-sad.svg
    Also, kindly look at Yvarta's comment above. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Well, you can make a case for Kennedy I guess. I wouldn't vote for it because "20th century American, shot" is not unusual, and "19th-20th American President, shot" is not unusual given the small class, and while "20th century American, shot by a high-powered rifle from above while in a convertible" is quite unusual, that's too specific.
I mean, I see what you're saying. Here's another take: people are going to expect to find Duncan here, I suppose. If they don't, they'll snort and figure we just have an incomplete list. I don't see the harm in being a little flexible about it. (If I thought people would expect to find Kennedy here, that might be a good argument for putting him in too. But while I don't know, my guess is that people won't expect to find Kennedy here.)
OK, I read Yvarta. It's not exactly that she's wrong, we're just coming from different places. "This is why I feel 'time and place' do not matter in this context, instead timeless exceptional uniqueness" is an valid and defensible opinion, I just don't agree with it, in this case.
We do apparently have to keep this article trimmed and keep people from adding their neighbor who drowned in the swimming pool or whatever. Duncan is one entry and so it doesn't matter much either way so the cost of being a little flexible is low, but if it causes the floodgates to open, that will be a problem. If we reach a state where people are bringing in tons of scarf-deaths and automobile-deaths and dancer-deaths and citing Duncan as the precedent and it becomes annoying, that'll be different. But we can revisit the issue when and if that happens. Nobody has asserted that its a problem yet. Herostratus (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The list specifies "unusual" not "unique". Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
But Duncan's death is usual. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Five good sources describe it as "unusual" - that is plenty. Can we close this as keep and get back to creating content please? Edwardx (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Edwardx: you mean, if five good sources describe it as unusual, the other deaths (also described by good sources) never took place? Maybe these people are living with Elvis. Also, nobody is stopping you from creating (inaccurate) content. You can ignore this RfC and carry on with creating (inaccurate) content. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, I cannot see what point you are trying to make - what "other deaths"? And why the apparently ad hominem comments at the end? Edwardx (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Edwardx: the other deaths of exact same fashion, as per WP:RS. I apologise for the ad hominem comment. You indirectly stated that I was creating obstacles in the creation of content by this inaccurate argument. That made me angry. This is not an inaccurate argument. And you pinged my talkpage, not me. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I'm in favor of keeping the article, it's basically on a combination of 1) narrow grounds (it is unusual in context, same as a 21st century American death in a formal duel would be unusual in context), and because 2) it's famous, and so I think people will expect to find it here and it fits and there's no harm, which is kind of WP:IAR grounds.
However, I don't find the argument "Five good sources describe it as unusual" to be particularly worthwhile. An argument has been advanced and proved that it is not unusual, in a broad context which it is reasonable to adopt. Since it's not true (if you accept the broad context), who cares what reliable sources say? They're wrong and its just their opinion. If for some reason 20 notable and usually-reliablesources described Angela Merkel as being a 12 meter tall sentient jellybean, we still probably wouldn't describe her that way in her article, because its obviously not true. Reliable sources are a tool for figuring out what to tell the reader is true, but they're not an oracle, and no rule can force us to tell readers things that obviously aren't true.
Again, I don't think its obviously not true that Duncan's death is unusual. It comes down to opinion, what context you want to use for "unusual". Herostratus (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So we should add content to fit expectations of readers, and avoid facts? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep While Dunacan's death is not unusual, she was in France (not India) and it is expected for her to be in the list. She's kind of known for her death. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is she "expected" to be on the list? If she is known for her death, good work by angel of death, and good for Duncan's article. I dont see why it should give her death place in this article. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because others died in the same way doesn't make the death "usual", it still remains unusual compared to common causes of deaths, like heart diseases, traffic accidents or cancer. And Duncan is one of the famous victims, if not the only famous one. Brandmeistertalk 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: by that logic, all the other people who died this way should be added in this article. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: here is a "reliable source" stating Duncan's death is common: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986150usernamekiran(talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If among people who died like that there's one WP:NOTABLE, I don't think we should exclude him/her. Besides, that source says "the possibility of death from strangulation by a scarf getting caught in the wheel spokes of a vehicle was brought to the public's attention when the world famous dancer Isadora Duncan died" and that this is even sometimes called "Isadora Duncan syndrome" ([2], [3]). Brandmeistertalk 16:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: not sure whats your point here. Yes, "it (the method of dying) was brought to public's attention" by her death. Doesnt make her death unusual or unique. "It is sometimes called Isadora Duncan syndrome" because there more incidents like it to be called. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The point is because she brought it to public attention and this manner of death is named after her, they are another reasons for keeping. Brandmeistertalk 16:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - random thought that occurs to me: might it be prudent to have a List of individuals who died in unusual ways, versus List of unusual ways to die? One to focus on individuals with unique or exceptional passings, and one to focus on more common but still unusual methods of death. Yvarta (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not going to enter into an extended dialog, because I think my position is pretty clear above, and I'm not up for participating in an extended bludgeon session. Numerous reliable sources have noted Duncan's death as unusual. For editors to do their own original research to determine that it isn't really unusual is just as WP:OR as any other. TJRC (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between WP:OR and common logic. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per TJRC. Seraphim System (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Re: 'all that is required for inclusion (as has been repeatedly established and stated) is that multiple sources describe the death as “unusual” or some synonym thereof' – TH=hat's not good enough. If the "death type" has become more commonplace today, the sources that called it unusual back then are no longer valid, as obsolete. If this way of dying was actually more common than thought even back then, those souces are invalid, as unreliable in this instance (i.e., ignorant of the facts about such deaths).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Summoned by bot. Seems to fit the criteria. I'd suggest removing the second sentence as this death did not occur in South Asia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: In a newspaper, I read about a person died cuz his foot slept on his slippery terrace. He is the only person to die this way in that small village. People from this village call it unusual. Should we add it here? The list is not about unusual deaths in particular region. Thats the whole point. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Might be a typical way to die in India. In the US/England/Europe it's unusual. Pretty much all I have to say. Good luck with the article. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's usual inclusion criteria are met. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of unusual deaths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of unusual deaths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)